Wikileaks

Starhammer wrote: Whoa, we have a Brazillian admin?

Rumor has it he was born underneath an amber moon...

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 26 2010 at 19:40

Slartibartfast wrote: Starhammer wrote: Whoa, we have a Brazillian admin? Rumor has it he was born underneath an amber moon...

I like the principle of Wikileaks and I'm certain that the sex assault charges are just to get him in trouble...

I suspect Washington is leaning on london, to suspend the diplomatic immunity of the Equadorian embassy, so we can extradite him to Sweden.

It will be easier thereafter to extradite him to the US.

It's great. But some people have gone too far and have indangered lots of people with it.

Dean wrote: How? Surely if there is one country on this planet that it is easy for the USA to extradite someone from it's going to be the UK. The Sweden/USA extradition treaty specifically excludes political and military extraditions and any extradition to a third country (USA) requires permission from the first country of extradition (UK) under the terms of the extradition treaty between EU countries.

It's still got to be easier extraditing from Sweden than from a soveriegn embassy. Assange faces charges in Sweden, not the UK, so if he is handed into Swedish police custody that would surely mean that extradition to the US would not constitute extradition to a third country. The point is, there will ways round this for the US. The law, as they, say is an ass.

Dean wrote: Blacksword wrote: Dean wrote: How? Surely if there is one country on this planet that it is easy for the USA to extradite someone from it's going to be the UK. The Sweden/USA extradition treaty specifically excludes political and military extraditions and any extradition to a third country (USA) requires permission from the first country of extradition (UK) under the terms of the extradition treaty between EU countries. It's still got to be easier extraditing from Sweden than from a soveriegn embassy. Assange faces charges in Sweden, not the UK, so if he is handed into Swedish police custody that would surely mean that extradition to the US would not constitute extradition to a third country. The point is, there will ways round this for the US. The law, as they, say is an ass. Yes it does - he is being extradited from the UK to Sweden for the specific charge of sexual assault - any further extradition to another country for another offence would require agreement from the UK under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedish authorities. Of course there are ways around this - one of Assange's biggest fears is the US will use extraordinary rendition (ie illegal) methods to get him - and there he's not going to be safe anywhere, even in Ecuador.

I guess so, although part of me thinks Assange's case is too high profile for extraordinary rendition. There would too much publicity around it. Assange is a household name now, unlike the numerous faceless Jihadi's who have been black bagged and flown to torture havens by the west. Anyone who follows the news, will have some vague memory of this government and the last, being accused of complicity in dubious practices, but without some time intensive Googling, I suspect not many people could pin point a specific case of this happening. Assange is a different matter. He would, rightly or wrongly, end up a martyr figure, for all those who cherish the truth.

smartpatrol wrote: Andy Webb wrote: smartpatrol wrote: It's great. But some people have gone too far and have indangered lots of people with it. Who are these "some people" and who have they "endangered"? I've never heard of anyone physically threatened by the release of those documents other than the government's already soiled reputation.  One example is when several documents were released that could've endangered some of our soldiers overseas.

But specifically, what did those documents disclose? There may have been a risk to US or allied forces, as a result of the disclosures, but IIRC, this was not ever quantified or proven in any meaningful way. In other words, we only have the word of people, who have a demonstrated track record of lying that this was the case.

Western forces were put in danger in numerous ways, largely by those who sent them into war. In the case of many Britsh troops, without the proper combat gear. In the case of the US and UK, allowing repeated tours of duty for personell suffering serious mental health issues; PTSD etc. I suspect our troops have also been exposed to depleted uranium hazards.

Somtimes it's healthy to remind oneself, that there isn't really good vs bad in this world, just different persepctives on the same challenges. IMO, anyway.

^^^ Agreed. As should all power.

Overall, it s a good. thing. However, i think it's reasonable to use common sense with leaks. If they release a series of cables without informant's names blocked out or divulge specific tactics or troop movements before they happen, then there's not really much of a point. The purpose of the leaks should be to shine a light on the shady aspects of government/corporations, and be a whistleblower in that effect. Just to release data for the sake of it, and endangering soldiers, informants, or diplomats for little gain is irresponsible. 

Edited by stonebeard - August 20 2012 at 14:18